Talk:Grumman HU-16 Albatross

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Type rating[edit]

I believe the statement that a type rating is required to act as co-pilot is incorrect. Obviously the Pilot-In-Command would require a type rating, but I believe that in the US, only Part 121 operations require that a copilot have a type rating in an aircraft that requires a type rating to act as pilot in command. I believe that is for compliance with ICAO regulations, and does not apply to operations under Part 135 or Part 91. I will change the notation in 30 days unless somebody can point out a FAR that shows that I am wrong (I might be, but I'm 95% certain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusketeeerMan (talk • contribs)

UF-2G[edit]

The article mentions a UF-2 as a German variant, and a UF-1G as a Coast Guard variant, but I have seen photos of a Coast Guard aircraft marked "UF-2G"...what was the difference with this version? 173.60.179.233 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Territory Airlines[edit]

"In the mid-1960s the U.S. Department of the Interior acquired 3 military Grumman HU-16's from the U.S. Navy and established the Trust Territory Airlines in the Pacific to serve the islands of Micronesia."

This same information appears (in pretty well exactly the same words) on any number of sites, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. It would in fact appear to be a case of the same misinformation getting repeated over and over again.

See http://www.taloa.org/trustTerritory.html and www.goodall.com.au/grumman-amphibians/grummanalbatross.pdf (page 2)

It would appear that the aircraft were leased from the USAF rather than acquired from the USN and that they were initially acquired by Transocean in May 1954. With the demise of Transocean they passed to the Trust Territory Airlines (administered by Pan-Am) and subsequently to Air Micronesia. One (N9943F) was lost while landing at Palau on 20.7.61 and the other two (N9942F and N9944F) were returned to the USAF in 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.15.202 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article unprotected[edit]

I've unprotected the article because the IP that gave rise to its imposition is now rangeblocked. Posting here because I messed up giving reason when unprotecting. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Valor movie[edit]

An Albatross and a DC-3, perhaps an HU-16 and C-47 but without any markings, appear in this movie and land on a dry lake. They are not credited. 174.247.224.201 (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the appearances do not meet the requirements of WP:MILPOP. BilCat (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]